I'm all for defence and debate, it made me document a few more things below on this topic -

I'm not 100% sure if the poster Dragons_Blood and Eddy Kay on G+ are the same person? feel free to let me know, I would be happy to discuss this further if needed.

I just had to reply on this, here on my blog - The points and my reply in blue to them below -

From the points on 3DPrintboard.com -

Dragons_Blood -“I
just wanted to let my voice be heard. I'm not a huge fan of Makerbot but I don
think that what they are doing is not exactly their fault.”

RH - Who’s fault is it? Is someone holding a 3D printed gut to
their heads? Using a broken system is not an excuse.

“Makerbot has 2 choices here. Either patent these
designs which aren't already patented, or allow another company to do so. “

RH - Other choices include, releasing the exact same documentation
you use for the patent out into the public domain as Prior Art, and then happily
manufacture these designs. This can be done directly or by allowing the Patent
application to lapse, then it becomes Prior art and no one can then patent, but
anyone can use the idea / method.

“If
another company patents these designs, then they can prohibit Makerbot from
ever using them on any of their future 3d printers. However, if Makerbot
patents them, they ensure that another competitor (i.e. 3d systems with cubify)
doesn't patent it and hold them out of the market.“

RH - See above about
public domain and prior art.

-
Most of the open-source and maker community is not concerned about companies fighting
over patents, infringements and IP, that’s their choice for constantly going
down that route.

-
What would have made all the difference is if Makerbot made a statement saying
they will not go after anyone in the open-source community, or designers where
inspiration for these types of ideas also appeared. The fact they have patented
so many interesting aspects of Home 3D printing that are also being developed
in the open-source community and that they have not engaged at all with that
community on this aspect, means they want ownership of patents covering these
things, and they didn’t want to highlight what they were doing ‘in the
background’. Many companies face this ‘big business problem’ that’s fine – it’s
clear that Makerbot is not going to stop down that route, they have stated many
times now “we need strong patents” – the concern is over what they intend to do
with them and that they have not been open with an open-source community they
once held closely at the heart of their business model.

-Over on Google+ if you search you will find an this post from Jan Wildeboer who claims he offered to assist Bre
Pettis (Makerbot) over a year ago with similar type of promise to the ‘community’
– I find it a real missed opportunity that was not taken up or used as a guide
for a similar statement from Makerbot – if it had, this would not have caused
such a bad feeling of betrayal and brocken trust within the open-source/RepRap community
and Makerbot’s patents.Jan's G+ Post - "Dear +MakerBot , here's an idea for you to ponder. Take a look at http://www.redhat.com/footer/patent-promise.html The Red Hat Patent Promise. To put it in simple terms, we at Red Hat apply for patents, mostly out of defensive reasons in a world of patent trolls. But we are fully aware that we must defend the freedom of Open Source and Open Innovation. So we have the legally binding promise that we will never use our patents against developers of Open Source software. It's not the perfect solution, but it is definitely better than your current approach of filing patents and not declaring what the community can do or NOT do.A year ago I offered +bre pettis my help in working on a similar approach for Makerbot, this however never happened. I am still ready to help and hook you guys up with my network. I think you could have avoided a lot of negative vibes with a patent promise in the Red Hat style."

-Pledges like the RedHat Patent promise not to go after
open-source contributors to a project / technology are already being used by
companies that need to have strong patents for legal defence, but also do not
want to alienate a community that supports them and can often lead to ideas
worth patenting.

-Without this sort of statement, what are people to think? How
will Makerbot use their power and Patent arsenal? For or against an open source
community or open-source company? Who knows, but waiting to see is going to be
too late.

}

“If that were to happen, it would be very difficult
for MakerBot to do anything about it.“

RH
- Companies design around patents all the time, and produce more innovative products
in the process, also producing more IP that can then be opened up or kept
secret, whatever works for you.

“I highly doubt that Makerbot plans to use these
patents to profit off of, or keep anyone from entering the market. They are
doing it simply to protect their ability to use these currently unpatented
designs in the future. “

RH - Why would you assume that? One of the only reasons to
have a patent it to get some leverage from it, by making someone else afraid to
go near your patented method in-case they say you infringe. Or to attack
someone (a competitor doing quite well in the market, but not well enough to defend a
big legal battle). And then also to have a patent armoury as a final card to
play if someone comes after you.

“Right
now they are all free to use, since there are no patents on them. However, if
Cubify (3d systems) came along and patented them, they could hold MakerBot ransom.
“

RH - Ransom, Threat, Stalemate, stand-off, war, stranglehold, limiting innovation that's what patents have come to stand for. You can decide to patent almost anything, if you have enough
money and think it will benefit you.

“Sure
Makerbot could go to the courts and say that these designs were created by
someone else but then that other person may be required to either patent the
design or allow someone else to. They would be stuck in a catch 22, where the
patent would either belong to the company that filed the patent, or the
original filer, who may not even wish to file a patent for the design.“

RH - The Patent
system was supposed to stop things in the public domain being patented in the
first place; the scenario above will always appear if companies decide to
gather as many patents in an area as possible with the intention of patent litigation
in the future.

Most patents are
vague for the very reason of letting some later process in the courts or by
expert testimony win over an infringement claim, or so simply sink the other
party in legal debt before the case is finished.

“I think Makerbot is getting too much heat for just
protecting their future business model. Until we see them actually sue someone
for using these designs, I think we should let them be.”

RH
- It’s too late once they sue a growing open source company - who will already
be on their radar - like Printrbot, Ultimaker or RepRapPro for Patent infringement,
what they could have done is make a Patent promise not to go after these types
of open-source companies in a similar way to how Red-Hat handled their growth.
That’s the true missed opportunity to unite a now big company like Makerbot with
an entire (and very smart) community to forge trust, rather than shatter and divide it.

RH
- That takes true vision and courage, Bre Pettis could have pulled it off if
that’s what he wanted to achieve with Makerbot and the wider 3D Printing
community. That’s what I'm personally disappointed about.

Even Adafruit themselves do not seem to be able to decide if they want to stock Makerbot/Stratasys products.John Biggs on TechCrunch posted The Next Open Source Battle Is Being Waged In The 3D Printing IndustryJohn does mentions Red Hat, but unfortunately not the point about a patent promise I talked about above.Makerbot finally released a statement, (here on TechCrunch) it's bland sees right past the issues of trust and duplicity with the 3D printing community. The arguments could easily rage on back and forth, If Makerbot only want to focus on the Quick-Release Extruder - Members of the community have highlighted extruder designs that have the bistable spring implementation posted to Thingiverse as early as 2011 http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:7129"by MiseryBot, published Mar 19, 2011" Not quite as "slick" but it does have that key "bistable" bit.﻿ Makerbot, I feel you are now on your own.

Plenty of other comments and views are also being aired all over on various forum's and blogs,

reprap aggregation pipe

About Me

Richard Horne (RichRap)
is an Electronics Engineer, Product Designer, Salesman, and Problem Solver
working in a wide range of industries and applications, across many platforms
and technologies for the last 20 years.